IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6087 of 2020 Between: 1. Venkateswara Rao V, S/o. Kodanda Ramaiah, aged about 62 years, R/o. 1/74, Nandivada Mandal, Nandivada, Krishna District-521 321. 2. Meenakshi Devi V, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o. 1/74, Nandivada Mandal, Nandivada, Krishna District-521 321. 3. Venkateswara Kodanada Ramaiah V, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 36 years, R/o. 1/74, Nandivada Mandal, Nandivada, Krishna District-521 321. 4. Mrudula M, D/o. Dharmaswara Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o. 9- 45/2/Gavaravaram, Sriram Nagar, Eluru Mandalam, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh- 534004. 5. Kalayan Kumar Bella, S/o. Venkata Swamy, aged about 44 years, R/o. Flat No- 204, Oak Gardens, New Narayanapuram Colony, Nidamanuru, Krishna District - 521104. 6. Rama Seetamma Bella, W/o. Kalyan Kumar, aged about 37 years, R/o. Flat No- 204, Oak Gardens, New Narayanapuram Colony, Nidamanuru, Krishna District - 521104. 7. Lakshmi Meenakshi Ganta, W/o. Srikanth, aged about 38 years, R/o. Door No.5-71/2, TF- 5, Sivannanda Residency, SER Center, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District -521108. 8. Naga Ratna Hanumara, W/o. Chaitanya Kumar, aged about 34 years, R/o. Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. 9. Srinivasa Rao Vankayalapati, S/o. Prasad, aged about 45 years, R/o. 5-23, Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. lO.Suresh Kumar Dukkipati, R/o. Nandivada Mandalam, aged about 55 years, R/o. Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. lI.Raghavendra Prasad Tummala alias Tummala Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Prasad Gopala Krishna, aged about 55 years, R/o. 6-43, Srinivapuram, Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District-521321. 12.Vankayalapati Sirdhar Babu, S/o. Prasad, aged about 43 years, R/o. 5-23, Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. 13.Purnachandra Rao Kodali, S/o. Gandi, aged about 47 years, R/o. Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. 14.Bomma Prasad Deevi, S/o. Venkatacharyulu, aged about 41 years, R/o. Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District- 521321. 15.Venkata Ramana Tummala, W/o. Ragvendra Prasad, aged about 53 years, R/o. 6-43, Srinivapuram, Nandivada Mandalam, Nandivada, Krishna District-521321. ...Petitioners/Accused AND 1. State of A.P., Rep by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi, Nelapadu, Krishna District. ...Respondent No.1/Complainant 2. Kasi Venkateswara Rao Motaparthy, S/o. M V Subba Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o. Banjara HiHs Road No. 12, Hyderabad City, Telangana. / ...Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings Cr.No.311 of 2020 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including stay of arrest in Cr.No. 311 of 2020 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pavan Kumar Annabathuni, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Order: APHC010376592020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6087/2020 Between: Venkateswara Rao V, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.PAVAN KUMAR ANNABATHUNI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.UNNAM SRAVAN KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_6Q87_2020 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in Crime No.311 of 2020 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District, for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 467, 420, 468, 471,477-A, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for Short “I.P.C.”). Petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 herein lodged complaint before the police alleging that he is the present President of General and Technical Education Society, Gudivada and he is the member of the founder family of the society. The said society was established with a laudable object to encourage and promote general and technical education and also to create atmosphere conducive for the growth and development of technical skills, and also to improve intellectual and moral values and also to carry-out charitable activities for general public utilities and also to spread the benefits of the society to all the citizens in India, irrespective of caste, creed, religion and sex. The society was also established as a non-profit, non commercial and as an apolitical institution. He is also the President of VKR College Committee at Gannvaram, which runs a junior and Degree College. He is also the Chairman of VKR Trust at Gannavaram, which runs Life Share Blood Bank at Vizag and Vijayawada. But, he is making this complaint in his individual capacity as the Patron and donor of General and Technical Education Society. He falls under Patron-1 category, as defined under Articles of the General and Technical Education Society, and he got elected as the President of the said Society in the year 2) Crlp_6087_2020 2016. The powers and functions of the said society are mentioned under Article 13 of the AOA of the said society. The said society was established by his predecessors, in an extent of 4 acres approximately, in Nagavarapadu villae. Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. The entire land was acquired in the name of Society itself. Later on, VKR & VNB Polytechnic College was established, in a building constructed in the said land. At a later point of time, a degree college was also established by virtue of the donations granted by Anne Narsimha Rao and Pushpa Leelavathi and as well as the donations received by the Society,, which was named as ANRPL Degree College. In the year 2008, by virtue of an additional donation received from \. one Adusumilli Gopala Krishna, engineering college was setup, and named as VKR, VNB and AGK College of Engineering. an 3) From the academic year 2009-10, ANRPL Degree College was shifted to Gudivada to rented premises, run by one B Srinivas Reddy. All through right from the academic year 2002 onwards, the incumbent secretary petitioner No.1 was discharging his duties General Secretary of the Society and petitioner No.3, who is the son of petitioner No.1, as a correspondent and petitioner No.5 is the administrative director, who along with their associates in pursuance of their evil design, conspired with each other by creating forged and false documents sold away each acre of land at the rate of as a Rs.70,00,000/- per acre and dishonestly and fraudulently account for Rs.50,00,000/- per acre, thereby wrongfully caused loss to the society and converted the same into his own property in flagrant Further, they misappropriated huge amount of General and Technical Education violation of entrustment made by the society. 4 VS,J CNp_6087_2020 Society to a tune of 7 crores and diverted the funds belonging to the Society for their personal gain. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B read with 34 of I.P.C. on the file of Gudivada I Town Police Station. The present petition has been filed to quash the said C.C.No.311 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is purely civil in nature and even if the allegations are considered to be true, the appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit before the Civil Court seeking cancellation of the sale deeds allegedly executed by petitioner No.1. Further, Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 filed by the defacto complainant against the petitioners herein and others seeking cancellation of sale deeds allegedly executed by petitioner No.1 which is pending for adjudication, therefore, criminal complaint filed by the defacto complainant is not maintainable. Prima facie, the allegations made in the complaint would not constitute offence punishable under Sections 408, 467, 420, 468, 471,477-A and 120- B read with 34 of I.P.C., requested to quash the proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that from the academic year 2002 onwards, the incumbent secretary i.e. petitioner No.1 was discharging his duties as a General Secretary of the Society, he along with petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 to 15 and their other associates in pursuance of their evil design, they conspired with each other by creating forged, false documents and misappropriated huge amount of General and Technical Education 4) 5) 5 VS,J Crlp_6087_2020 Society which is a tune of Rs.7 crores and diverted the funds of the society, therefore, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the offences (referred above) and requested to dismiss the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the contentions urged by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arises for consideration is as follows; “1. Whether pendency of Society O.P.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam debars respondent No. 2 from pursuing criminal complaint? 2. Whether the allegations made in the complaint, which is registered as a case in Crime No.311 of 2020 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District, constitute any of the offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 120B read with 34 of I.P.C.? If not, whether the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 6) 7) P O I N TNo.1: 8) The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9) Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, it is an obvious 6 VSJ Crip_6087_2020 proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 10) Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: 11) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it to 7 VSJ Crlp_6087_2020 appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^’’ 12) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to the case on hand. examine 13) The main allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they created bogus, sham, nominal and fraudulent sale deeds and misappropriated the funds of General and Technical Education Society, Gudivada. On coming to know the same, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint in the year 2020. Later, in the year 2021 defacto complainant has filed Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishna District, seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by one Kurumaddali Gopala Krishna in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein and the pending for adjudication. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is prosecuting both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously against the petitioners herein. Two parallel proceedings against another, both in civil and criminal courts cannot be prosecuted for the reason that, the finding if any given either in civil or criminal court will have its own impact on the other matter pending before the other Court. same is one 14) Admittedly, respondent No.2 lodged criminal complaint against the petitioners herein and the same was registered as a ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 8 VS,J Crlp_6087_2020 case in Crime No.311 of 2020 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station. After lodging the said criminal complaint, defacto complainant filed Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam seeking cancellation of the alleged sate deeds executed by one Kurumaddali Gopala Krishna in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that the said sale deeds are bogus and concocted. 15) If, really, the dispute is with regard to forgery and fabrication of documents, using forged documents as genuine, those questions can be decided in a pending civil case. But respondent No.2/defacto complainant is pursuing both simultaneously. If, for any reason, this type of practice is encouraged in every civil suit, there will be parallel criminal proceedings, more particularly, in suits for declaration of title and even for recovery of money on the basis of promissory notes and cheques. Unless the Courts, at least in the higher courts curb such practices, the parties may go on abusing the process of the Court to wreck vengeance against one another, thereby giving colour of criminality to civil litigation, pending on the file of different Courts. To prevent such abuse, Criminal Procedure Code conferred power the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice, while rendering ex debito justice. criminal and civil cases on 16) In “Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra^", relied on by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the Apex Court held that if the ingredients of offences alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in compliant, criminal ^ (2019) 14 see 350 9 VSJ Crlp_6087_2020 proceedings not to be interdicted and cannot be quashed only the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. on 17) In Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah^” relied by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the Apex Court while dealing with the contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, held that it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. on case 18) In "M.Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh counsel for the defacto complainant, the Apex Court held that mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. 4.. relied on by the learned 19) But subsequently, in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^’’ the Apex Court held that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and ^ (2005) 4 see 370 " (2001) 8 see 645 ^(2013) 11 see 673 10 VS,J Crlp_6087_2020 only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to guash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. In 'Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh^’’ the Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted. In “Commissioner of Police Vs. Devender Anand on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court held that if the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, the High Court ought not have issued further directions and ought to have closed the proceedings. 20) |7.. relied 21) In “Usha Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal", relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent therein resorted to civil remedy, during pendency of the said civil case is pending, the respondent also initiated criminal proceedings, while 22) ® (2015) 15 see 679 " 2019 see On Line Se 996 ® AIR 2023 se 688 11 Crlp_6087_2020 dealing with the same, the Apex Court relying on “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others’ (referred above) held follows: as The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings is nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the Respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in “Paramjeet Batra \/s. State of Uttarakhand' (supra), the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature thn Respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the Respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the Appellants.” 23) The law declared by the Apex Court in the above cases is that, when a particular incident disclosed both commission of offence in a civil and criminal, it is for the parties to proceed either in civil court or criminal court or in both, since the fundamental difference between civil and criminal proceeding is that, in a civil court, the court can grant specific relief or allow remedies, but in criminal case, if the court finds the accused guilty, the court imposes sentence on him in accordance with law. But, such question does not arise in civil proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings in criminal 12 VS,J Crlp_6087_2020 court leads to penal consequences, but in civil cases, the Court will grant only civil remedy to the parties who approached the court. 24) But, in the present case, the main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that, when a civil case is pending where the genuineness of the documents is to be decided, resorting the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court. But, in view of the conflicting judgments of the coordinate benches, it is difficult to follow either of the judgments. 25) In the present case, the defacto complainant has already approached the Civil Court by filing Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 on file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam after filing the present criminal complaint against the petitioners herein on the same ground that the petitioners herein in with other associates have forged and fabricated sale the collusion deeds and got them executed in their favour. When the defacto has already filed Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 for complainant cancellation of documents, which are to be fabricated or forged, this Court is of the considered view that, it is appropriate to give liberty the defacto complainant to file a complaint afresh on disposal of the civil case i.e. Society O.P.No.06 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, since there is no limitation for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC, as they are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years. Accordingly, the point is answered. to POINT No.2: 26) In view of the detailed discussion on Point No.1, it is not appropriate to record any finding on Point No.2, since this Court 13 Crlp_6087_2020 while deciding Point No.1, gave liberty to respondent No.2/defacto complainant to file a complaint, afresh after the disposal of Society O.P.No.6 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishna District, if necessary: as such, no finding is recorded on point No.2. Accordingly, this point is answered. 27) In view of my finding on Point No.1, this criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 28) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.311 of 2018 on the file of the Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District, while giving liberty to respondent No.2/defacto complainant to file a complaint afresh after disposal of the Soceity O.P.No.6 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 29) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. The Station House Officer, Gudivada I Town Police Station, Krishna District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri Pavan Kumar Annabathuni, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6087 of 2020 X 0 7 MAY- 2025 Current Secxion ^ <9 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION